rs s^z 

■ 5~ 

•Pssc 



TS 543 
.5 

.P5 J6 
Copy 1 



PROTEST 



OF 



Warren S. Johnson 



TO 



REPORT OF SUB-COMMITTEE 

ON THE PHILADELPHIA 

CITY HALL CLOCK. 



JT'S This printed protest is for the use of members 
of the Committee in session and is not privileged 
for pubhcation in whole or in part. 



Copyright 1903. by W. S. JOHNSON. 



^A 



-fSf 



(o 



THt LiLh/,f;v OF 
CONUKEbS, 

Two Copies Received 

FEB f? 1903 

. Copyiight t 

CLASS a 

COPY B. 



XXc. No 



' • • • • • 



BUROICK A ALLEN PRINT, MILWAUKEE 



To the Committee on Science and Arts 
of the Franklin Institute: 

GkxtlExMEn : 

At the time that 1 had the pleasure of meeting three of the 
members of your sub-committee with reference to a report which 
they made on the Philadelphia Tower Clock. I beg-ed the priv- 
ilege to put in writing what I had to sa>-, that it might l)e brought 
before the general comniitt^e as ^ ))ody. and. if necessary, the 
Franklin Institute as a corporation. 

Under date of February 5. 1901. I received from Dr. W'm. 
H. W'ahl, Secretary, the following: 

"Mr. IVarrcu S. Johnson, 

Milwaukee, ITis. 

My Dear Sir : I beg to suggest the proprietv on vour part 
ot making application to the Committee on Science and' the \rts 
of this Institute, for investigation and report upon the Philadel- 
phia 1 ower Clock. 

It appears to me that the methods emploved in the desicrn 
and construction of this apparatus are sufficientlv novel aSd 
original to warrant the committee in taking a favorable view of 
the same, and it is possible that thev mav even be disposed to 
grant you one of the medals in their gift, which might indirectlv 
or directly be of service to you. I send vou accordinglv a blank- 
form of application to b^ filled out. and on recei])t of same properlv 
signed and accompanied by the information desired by committee, 
it will be officially brought to the committee's notice.' 

Awaiting your early advices. I am, 
\'ery truly vours. 

'(Signed) W'M. H. W'AHL. Secretarv." 



Lnder date of l^>l)ruary 11, of the "same year. I received the 
following : 

''Mr. JTarren S. Johnson, 

New York, N. V. 

Mv Dear Sir: I have your letter of the 9th inst.. with en- 
closure of $5.00. which I have entered as your pavment of fee for 
investigation, as indicated in your communication. 

I will have the case enter'ed on the record book of our Com- 
mittee on Science and the Arts, and you mav l>e assured that we 



will appoint a competent committee of experts to pass judgment 
on your work as exhibited in the City Hall Clock. 

It will afford me nuich jileasure also to propose you as a 
non-resident member of the Institute. Your election will take 
place very shortly. 

\'erv truly vours, 

'(Signed) WM. H. WAHL. Secretary." 

In accordance with these proceedings, by request. I sent to 
the h>anklin Institute all data as to the Patent Office records in 
securing a ])atent, showing the Institute every possible courtesy 
in giving the committee full information. While the application, 
as stated by Dr. W'ahl, was for a report on the Philadelphia 
Tower Clock, I took it for granted, from tlie documents that the 
sub-committee required, that it was an investigation into the 
method and novelty of operating clocks in general and that it was 
not restricted to the Philadelphia Tower Clock, and this in a 
measure is borne out by remarks which were made in the report 
made by your sub-committee. Jm-cui time to time, thinking that 
a great deal of time \yas taken for this work, I wrote Dr. Wahl 
as to the progress being made. L'nder date of August 29, 1901, 
I received the following : 

' *.!//'. /['. 6\ Johnson, 

Johnson lilcctvic Service Co., 

Milii'LUthee, Wis. 

AIv Dear Sir: I have no knowledge of any reason to jus- 
tify your apparent apprehension that the committee having charge 
of the investigation of your Clock System is otherwise than most 
favorably impressed with its utility. The committee has been in- 
dustriously at work in carrying on its investigation in the clock 
room of the City Hall, having been fortunate enough to secure 
the co-operation, as a member of the committee, of Mr. John S. 
Stevens, who is quite familiar with the history of the clock and 
its system of operation and control. 

I have a- note this morning from the chairman of the sub- 
committee, in answer to my inquiry as to when in his opinion a 
report would be ready for transmission to the General Committee, 
and in his answ'er he names, 1 believe, October as the probable 
date of the meeting at which he expects to be able to have his 
work completed. I will be pleased to communicate with you fur- 
ther at the proper time. 

\>rv truly vours, 

'(Signed) WM. H. WAHL, Secretary." 



Vou will note that this letter is dated Aur^ust 29th, 1901. 
Nothing- further was transmitted to nie with reference to the 
progress of your committee in its investigation of the Cit}- Hall 
Clock or my clock system, and 1 was never called upon for any 
explanation of any possible misconception on the part of die sub- 
committee ; never once was I asked if the statements made to them 
by others were true or whether the conclusions which they might 
arrive at were based on facts, or whether things which seemed to 
be defects were radical or only apparent and explainable, or 
whether their position in every case was tenable or not tenable. 
T never received a communication, as stated above, nor did I 
ever meet personally one of the sub-committee. In other words. 
I put nnself completely in the hands of your committee, and 
according to the report made, if it should still stand, which I 
trust in justice it will not. I was accused, tried and convicted 
without the privilege accorded to every citizen of defending him- 
self against the loss of his reputation. Nearly fifteen mouths 
after the date of Dr. Wahl's letter, in which he says the chairman 
of the committee assured him that the report of the committee 
would probabl}- be read}- in ( )ctober. and more than a year after 
this date of October, during which time I had believed from the 
information which had come to me. as is indicated by copies of 
letters as above, that a report would be favorable.— I read in the 
morning papers of Philadelphia ( millions of copies of which were 
sent broadcast), articles, the caption of one of them being as 
follows : 

SAY TOWER CLOCK 
WON'T DO 



Experts Report That the City Hall 
Timepiece Is Not Accurate, 
Is Easily Broken and Is Ex- 
pensive. 

(Then follows quite an article in which there are quotations 
from a report of your su])-c(jniniittee, which re]~)()rt T had never 



seen and had no knowledge of whatever. This is only a sample 
of what appeared in several other of your Philadelphia papers.) 

In a publication issued in New York, called "The Jewelers' 
,Cikcl'lak-Weekly", under date of Noveni])er 12, 1902, there ap- 
pears the following : 

Scientists Declare Costly Mannuoth 
Tower Clock to be a Failure. 

Philadelphia. Nov. 8. — Of inierest to 
clock makers throughout the country is the 
report given publicity in Philadelphia last 
week, made by the conmiittee on science 
and arts of the Franklin Institute, con- 
demning the biggest and costliest clock in 
this country — the timepiece in the tower of 
the Philadelphia City Hall, installed two 
years ago by Professor Johnson of New 
York and Milwaukee. 

In consequence of the clock's "failure, i.i 
its present form, to give the desired re- 
sults." the Franklin Institute, which has 
high standing in the scientific world, re- 
fuses to award a medal to the builder. 
Professor Johnson. In pointing out the 
defects of the mammoth timepiece tlie re- 
port says : 

"A city clock should be, first, as accurate 
as an astronomical clock : second, simple 
in construction and not liable to accident ; 
third, operated at small expense. The com- 
plicated mechanism of the City Hall clock 
requires a special salaried attendant all the 
year round. The pneumatic system as ap- 
plied to the clock is continually getting 
out of order. The hands of the clock are 
worked by compressed air. which requires 
the continual operation of two one-horse- 
power motors. The master clock opens the 
valve which admits the compressed air to 
the tubes connected with the gears, and 
the hands are finally moved. The dia- 
phragms which are responsible for the op- 
eration of the dials are liable to- break at 
any time, and when they do, which is 
often, it is necessary to operate them by 
hand while the repairs are being made." 

The report cites the fact that the West- 
minster clock of London seldom needs at- 
tention after being wound up. and when 
repairs are necessary any practical clock- 
maker can make them. The experts who 
have watched the City Hall clock say the 
hands on the different dials are not always 
the same, and that the clock is inaccurate 
often. 

You can imagine my mortification on reading these puhlica- 
tions, as they could hut cause a lasting injury to my reputation 



and material welfare and that of the company which 1 represent. 
In speakini^ to the three members of the sub-committee whom I 
was fortimate eno'U,e:h to meet (but, unfortunately, at a time too 
late as it seems to me, to do me adequate justice), the statement 
was made that this report was not made public, simply being 
made to the Franklin Institute, and that if rei)orted. it was re- 
ported by members of the Institute who had a right to attend the 
meeting. I beg leave to call your attention to the fact that this 
is not a report of a committee tO' the Institute. Init a report of a 
sub-committee to a committee. Of course, the Franklin Institute 
has a })erfect right to make its own by-laws and methods of pro- 
cedure, but I wish to call your attention to the fact that you can 
point out no instance in practice or in any parliamentary rules 
for the guidance of the deliberative bodies, where a member of 
the body as a whole is privileged to sit with or to listen to the 
deliberation of special committees, or to hear the reports of sub- 
committees to a committee of the general body. This holds good 
from the Congress of the United States down. A member of the 
Franklin Institute, if guided by the same rules which guide all 
other deliberative bodies, has the rights of a member only as a 
member. He has not the right to sit with a committee and listen 
to its deliberations. His rights begin only when such committee 
has reported its deliberations to the general body. Therefore, 
whatever the internal rules of the Franklin Institute may be. the 
results of these rules by which personal or business reputation is 
injured cannot fall outside of the Institute itself, excepting as 
others taking advantage of the fact that they were allowed to 
listen to the reixjrts of sub-committees, have used this advantage 
to injure my rq^utation and future prospects, and such persons 
must bear the burden which they have assumed by their acts. 

If you will carefully read the so-called quotation from your 
sub-committee's report, as it appeared in the Jew^elers' Weekly, 
>ou will find that it is not a verbatim quotation, although it is 
printed in quotation marks. This journal has taken the privilege 
of using the worst things which occur in your report and of 
placing them in a paragraph indicating and representing that you 
made the report as they printed if. thus not only doing an in- 
justice to me. bifl also to you. 



J will remark that I have notified thejKWKLKRs'WKKKLYPiT.- 
LisHiNC. Company on my behalf and on J:)ehalf of the company 
which I represent, that unless they make adequate retractions 
and proper representations, thereby undoings as far as possible 
the wrong which they have done, suit will be l)egun for damages. 

The City Clerk in Toronto has in his possession a i)aper, 
(whether it is one of the Philadelphia ])apers. the Jewelers' Cir- 
cular above mentioned, or some other) in which we understand 
your report is given, or said to be given, and is condemnatory. I 
will try and produce a copy of this paper, if it be other than what 
has been mentioned above. 

Xow. aside from the general results in loss of reputation 
which must necessarily result from such publications as I cite 
above, I wish to call your attention to a letter written by the agent 
of the E. Howard Clock Company, who are manufacturers of 
tower clocks and competitors of mine in placing the same. (I 
would state in this connection that I was trying to sell a tower 
clock to the County Commissioners of El Paso Co.. Colorado.) 

'"CiiiCACo. November 20. 1902. 

Couiify Commissioners HI Paso County, 

Colorado Springs, Colorado. 

Gentlemen : Cnder separate cover, please find a copy of 
the Jewelers' Circular-Weekly. Please look on page 56 and 
read what scientists have tO' say regarding the Johnson Pneumatic 
Clock. I only desire that you purchase their make of clock with 
your eyes open. 

'•' * '•' '•' (The remainder of the letter is of no in- 
terest, as far as this paper is concerned.) 

Yours truly. 

(Signed) R. B. REDEERN, 

Rep. The E. Howard Clock Co., 

Xo. 103 State Street, 

Chicago, 111." 

When I saw three members of your sub-committee I indi- 
cated to them what use would be made by competitors of the re- 
port which it was proposed to make on the Philadelphia clock 
and what damage would result. After noting the garbled quota- 
tion of their preliminary report, made by the Jewelers' Circtlak 
Weekly and the use of it made by the E.Howard Clock Company, 
does the committee or an}- member of it think thdt such people are 



the proper ones to entrust reputations with, and that reports should 
l)e alloAved to £^et into the hands of people who have so Httle 
idea of their legal rights and their moral" obligations to their 
fellow citizens, as to use the Franklin* Institute for purposes of 
injuring others? 

Having now spoken of the immediate results of the publica- 
tion of the preliminary report (which, I think, after a further 
cofisideration, you will concede was unjust to me), I shall now 
proceed to such analyses of your report as shall seem to me just, 
and in doing which. I only use the ordinary natural instinct given 
to all of us of self-preservation. Please remember that wdiat I 
say is only said with a view of arriving at the truth, and as truth 
concerns me personally here, I shall without favor and without 
prejudice hew^ to the line. 

Although I had asked for a period of some weeks for a copy 
of this preliminary report, which had gotten into the hands, in 
whole or in 'part, of public newspapers, I did not have the priv- 
ilege of seeing this report until al)out four hours before 1 met 
three members of your sub-committee, during which time I had 
practically not more than a half hour to glance it over. However, 
having a copy of this report before me, I note the following 
paragraph : 

"The committee endeavored to arrive at a conclusion with- 
out favor or prejudice towards any particular system, consider- 
ing the conditions under which other clocks operate, and the 
reasons, if any, which would render varied or special construction 
necessary or desirable in the clock under investigation." 

I am frank to take the report of this sub-committee as being 
an exemplification of its desire to arrive at conclusions without 
prejudice, but if, in view of what I have to present later, it seems 
to you that the sul>committee has unduly weighed the z'aluc of 
other clocks than mine and unduly magnified the defects in mine ; 
if while making statements as to other clocks, it has mentioned 
their perfections, without mentioning correspondingly their de- 
fects, and thereby thrown them out in an unjust light as com- 
pared with mine, I shall not assume that it is prejudice, but an 
oversight and shall endeavor in what follows to show that such 
statements were unjustifia1-)le and unjust. 



10 

The L>anklin Institute is a scientific body. Its committees 
are made up of scientific men. Its committees appoint sub-com- 
mittees supposedly of scientific men. In these early years of the 
twentieth century, we can. therefore, consider that all its con- 
clusions are based on the well-known laws \vhich govern investi- 
gations by scientific men. In order to give any conclusion scien- 
tific weight, the data on which it rests must not only be exact, 
but must be complete. The pros and cons should be equally 
given and due weight given to the cons as well as to the pros. 

It becomes a serious matter when conclusions are reached 
from mere statements w^ithout verification, and especially when 
statements are made which give impressions which would not be 
given providing corresponding and other statements were made 
of a contrary tenor. There is nothing truer than that "half a 
truth is no truth at all." I do not think that it will be necessary 
to try }our patience with a lengthy analysis of your sub-com- 
mittee report. In fact, I find it hard to gather this report into 
satisfactory and distinct headings, as it seems to me the matter 
in it is hardly classified. Taking it as a whole, the report is 
as follows : First : Statements and the conclusions as to the 
City Hall Clock in Philadelphia. Second: Statements as to its 
faults. Third : Statements as to its points of value. Fourth : 
Comparisons with other clocks. These comparisons consist in : 
(a) Simplicity; (b) Reliability; (c) Expense. 

I think it better to take up your report paragraph by para- 
graph, making adequate comments on each statement that is de- 
rogatory to the clock. It is unnecessary to comment on such 
paragraphs as in a measure are conmiendatory, for while I am 
duly thankful for such expressions, they serve rather to add 
weight to the adverse criticisms, since the final result is that your 
sub-committee condemns the clock. 

I. "The auxiliary is rather a poor afifair, it only being in- 
tended for emergencies, should it become necessary to throw the 
primary piece out of action, and will probably answer the purpose 
for very short periods." 

While the above paragraph contains the admission that the 
auxiliary clock which is stated to be "rather a poor affair" is 
only for emergencies, yet the drift of it is a criticism. I wish to 



11 



state that this auxiHary clock is a Swiss, pin-escapement regu- 
lator with a mercurial pendulum. It is the very same thing as is 
used by 95 per cent, of the jewelers as regulators in their shops. 
It is finely mounted on a base, exactly the same as the astronomical 
clock and has the same protection. While, of course, it is not a 
fine grade of work, the fact remains that it runs within seven 
seconds per month in accuracy. A criticism of this clock as 
"rather a poor aflfair" is to criticise the regulator universally 
used in jewelery shops. The statement is correctly made that it 
is only intended to be used in emergencies, but I wish to state 
that with the proper care and under the conditions which it works, 
its time-keeping qualities are better than any tower clock not 
made by us which may be found in the United States. Speaking 
of the switches which throw in and out fifty horse-power of elec- 
tricity for operating the dials, the report says: 

2. "The falling of this ball, which has some weight, shakes 
the whole slab and it would seem that some better arrangement 
should be substituted." 

This ball has now been falling twice a day for four years; 
in other words, it has fallen 2,920 times and is as firmly in posi- 
tion as the day on which it was placed. It might be possible to 
fasten it so that there would not be the jar when such large 
switch knives are thrown in and out, but this, you will agree, is 
a matter of not ver}- much importance, in view of the fact that 
having fallen 2.920 times, no ill effects have occurred. 

3. "The lever H. Fig. 5, is attached to the back plate of the 
clock movement and its workmanship and mounting are in strik- 
ing contrast to the rest of the clock, being very poor. 

The attachment to the l)ack plate is by a shouldered screw, 
upon which it oscillates and the pivots of friction wheel g are in 
metal bearings. All of these points should have been jeweled in 
the best possible manner." 

I wish to state that the point mentioned as to jewels, etc., 
may be well taken in the sense that a jeweled bearing is better 
than a plain on<? in some cases. As hundreds of these devices 
exactly like the one in this clock have been used for years and 
there has l>een no perceptible deterioration, the point made is not 
a practicable one. We have had running a Seth Thomas Pre- 



12 

cision clock for about six years, using the same construction and 
there has lieeii no lack of accuracy in this clock OAving to the 
small piece mentioned in this criticism. 

4. "The use of a dead beat escapement clock for this pur- 
pose is open to objection, from the fact that nO' work whatever, 
no matter how slight, except driving its i>endulum, should be put 
upon such a movement. The weight of the lever H, resting 
upon the cam g for 30 seconds must increase the friction upon the 
pivots of the escape wheel and places a disturbance at the very 
point where it can have the greatest effect upon the rate. 

The use of a gravity escapement of equally high grade would 
have been preferable." 

In answer to this criticism, 1 would say that I will guarantee 
this master clock to run, when properly regulated by an expert, 
within two seconds per month. 1 will guarantee that it will run 
more accurately than the astronomical clock used at the N^aval 
Observatory in Washington. J his is sufficient answer to criti- 
cism as to the effect of this device on the rating of the clock. 

5. "During the half minute that the lever is raised, air is 
constantly escaping directly into the clock case, bringing with it 
some moisture and it has been found necessary to place vessels 
with an absorbent in them to overcome this danger." 

The above paragraph is an illustration of the danger and the 
resulting error which may occur from not having given me any 
opportunity to explain matters. As stated above, I feel keenly 
the fact that this sub-committee has gone through this investiga- 
tion and kept me perfectly in the dark, notwithstanding I had 
appealed to Secretary Wahl several times as to progress of the 
investigation and was quieted by statements that work was pro- 
gressing and favorably to me, which, of course. Secretary Wahl 
supposed to be true. 

Now, as to the above paragraph, any one at all versed in 
pneumatics or 'hygrometry knows that temperatures remaining 
the same compression of air increases its relative humidity and 
that expansion of air decreases its relative humidity. The air 
after having beeen compressed in the pipe for clock service and 
cooled by the surrounding atmosphere cannot contain more than 
ioo per cent, of moisture. When this air escapes to the open 
air, from about thirteen pounds pressure to an atmosphere, the 



13 

humidity could nut under any circumstances l)c more than 55 per 
cent. As the normal humidity is from 70 per cent, to 75 per cent., 
the effect of this air would be to dry the surrounding- air in the 
case, rather than to moisten it. You will, therefore^ agree with 
me. that so far as this paragraph is concerned, the criticism is 
not scientific and shows that one may be versed in one branch 
of art and not in another. The reasons for putting the absorbent 
material in the case was not to dry the air coming from the 
pipes, but was put there because the clock room, being practically 
air tight, and having been built more rapidly than should have 
been done, had a damp wall at the rear, caused by the cement in 
which the tile was placed. During the early years of the in- 
stallation, moisture from this cement tended to corrode the clock 
movements and calcium chloride was placed in the small clock 
enclosure to absorb this moisture. I wish you would give due 
weight to the fact that this criticism is not only erroneous and 
unjust, but absolutely contrary to scientific theories and facts, and 
I respectfully refer you to the expert on h}grometry in the 
United States Weather JUircau as to the fact whether expanding 
air moistens or drys it. 

Your report now proceeds to discuss the question of dia- 
phragms which are used in the system for transmitting power, and 
states as follows : 

6. "There arc some fourteen of these diaphragms in the sys- 
tem and they last anywhere from three months to a year. They 
may give out at any time and only those furnished by the designer 
are satisfactory. The perfect condition of six are absolutely nec- 
essary to the control of the dials by the master clock." 

The statement that diaphragms wear out in from three months 
to a year is entirely gratuitous, as there is and can l^e no exact 
data for such a statement. What is more, any one of .these dia- 
phragms can be replaced in fifteen minutes time and during which 
time there is not the least necessity for the dials not being operated. 
That they must be in perfect condition and may give out any time, 
I wish to state cannot l>e possible, as a diaphragm of this nature 
cannot give out at any time. What I mean to say is, that their 
deterioation is gradual. They are not like a metal lever which 
mav break suddenly in two. It is not necessary for them to be 



14 

in perfect condition to operate the clock and their becoming defec- 
tive can be readily observed with but little attention. They may 
be replaced long before they are in a condition which makes them 
inefficient. It is a good deal like saying that a pair of shoes be- 
come suddenly defective and that a man cannot tell that he is to 
be bare-footed, until he finds himself in the street shoeless. There 
are many things in this world the deterioration of which is slow 
and evident, and the most careless attention to these diaphragms 
would detect any defects long before they had an influence on the 
clock. The inference is given in the above paragraph that the 
diaphragms can be furnished only by the designer, and the con- 
clusion drawn by anyone reading it, is that the designer is mak- 
ing money in furnishing diaphragms for this clock. Now, they 
are furnished by the designer only, for the reason that there is no 
such thing on the market in general as a good quality of sheet 
rubber, and as this designer has use for and uses in practical work 
more than 25,000 of these diaphragms per year, what objection is 
there to their being purchased of the designer? In order that the 
Committee may see that the City of Philadelphia is not being 
robbed, the designer will furnish all the diaphragms which are 
necessary in this clock for $2.00 per year. 

7. "Should that (the diaphragm) in the primary relay give 
out the control can be switched tO' the auxiliary clock while re- 
pairs are being made and this switch must be operated by the at- 
tendant. Automatic means should have been provided for this, 
for should it happen while the attendant is al>sent, the whole sys- 
tem will stop. 

If from any cause, the secondary relay gives out, the hands 
stop and right here is a serious defect in construction. There is 
no auxiliary relay to take up the work and the hands either stop 
or are operated by an attendant by means of the handle a. Fig. 7, 
an extension of the anchor f-f provided for that purpose." 

My remarks as to quotation Xo. 6 have shown that the sud- 
den giving out of these diaphragms never occurs, that premoni- 
tions of such giving out are very definite, and consequently, the 
sudden giving out of either the primary or the secondary relays, 
thus stopping the clock, cannot Occur. The only point that may 
be well taken in this criticism is, that there might be an auxiliary 
secondary relay, so that the air could be switched from one to the 
other withouf delay. The only effect of this would be to save 



15 

operating^ the dial movements for a few minutes by hand. As for 
furnishing an automatic means for doing this switching, in case 
of defects, I only call your attention to the fact that elsewhere in 
the report the clock is criticised for being complicated. How can 
it be both complicated and yet too simple? The report says in 
this same connection in regard to moving the clocks by hand : 

8. "This means has been resorted to, and if performed by 
one person, all the hands will not move at the same time." 

Further along in my reply to the report, I shall take up the 
matter of accuracy of time as shown by tower dials, and you cer- 
tainly will realize that a matter of a few seconds in the time of 
moving the minute hand of a tower clock, which moves only twice 
a minute, is not appreciable and not a reason for criticism, and 
that such criticism is simply finical. 

9. "Fro'm an engineering standpoint, the whole system, un- 
doubteilly, would l>e considered a success. — the drawbacks being 
something that could not be avoided, to be provided for as might 
best seem suited to the case. 

The horologist does not take any such view and considers 
that a clock, no matter what the size, should recfuire little more 
attention than a house clock." 

The last paragraph of the above quotation must be taken with 
a large range in the value of its wording, because this sub-com- 
mittee could not seriously make a statement, that a tower clock 
with dials 22 feet in diameter. 362J feet alxDve the ground, in a 
position, which is admitted by this report, has never before been 
filled by a clock (and also admitted, as I shall show later, in which 
a weight clock could not have run), should be cared for with little 
more attention than a house clock. Further comment on such a 
statement, seems to me, is unnecessary. 

In the alDOve paragraphs quoted, you will notice that this clock 
is divided into two departments. — a horological one and a me- 
chanical one. 1 understand that on your sub-committee are me- 
chanical engineers and tliere are horologists and your report, 
therefore, should be based on conclusions as to the merits of the 
cloek as a icJwlc and as to its reliability, and not upon the ideas as 
to a house clock or any other small clock. It is admitted in this 
quotaticin that from an engineering standpoint, the clock is con- 



16 

sidered a success. Now, if I show that this clock is reliable and 
has had a reliability in excess of any possible reliability of a weiglit 
clock, saying" nothing about the fact that it is admitted that a 
Aveight clock would not have run at all in the position of this clock, 
you can have no other recourse but to report the clock a success. 
This brings nie to the matter of the salaried attendant and the fact 
that throughout the report, there is a constant stress on the great 
expense required to care for this clock. You have appointed this 
sub-committee to report upon the clock and you should take into 
consideration not the question of the method of care which has 
been adopted by the City of Philadelphia, but by careful observa- 
tion and inquiry have determined the expense actuall\- required. 
The clock was completed and turned over to the city. It is neither 
ni}- province, nor within my power to judge of how the City of 
Philadelphia shall take care of its clock. I might give advice. I 
wish to state that I have installed more than twenty-five clocks 
\vhich operate in the same manner as the City Hall clock in Phila- 
delphia. Many of them, of course, are much smaller, as this is 
one of the largest clocks in the world, and one in which I should 
think from that fact alone, the City of Philadelphia would take 
pride (in fact, I do think it takes pride in it and I do think it is 
satisfactory in its time-keeping qualities, as seen by thousands of 
practical people every day). In all the other installations, except- 
ing this, there is no one in charge of the clock more expert than 
the janitors and engineers of the buildings, notwithstanding the 
fact that some are much more complicated than this clock, having 
striking mechanism. If I was not mistaken when I entrusted my 
reputation to a committee of the Franklin Institute, my reputation 
was not to be jeopardized by such matters as the expense in the 
care of a clock, if the care given to such clock was not at all under 
my control. There is no question but what the City Hall lUiilding 
in Philadelphia is and has been for thirty years the subject of 
continual criticism by the reporters of local newspapers, who use 
every opportunity to say something with reference to this build- 
ing. This has lead, as 1 should suppose, those who have charge of 
it to be extremely sensitive, as nobody loves adverse criticism, 
and in order to prevent any possibility of such criticism, in most 
cases very unfair, they have taken exceeding pains to j^revent such 



17 

criticism. Whatever l)e the case, 1 am not responsible and such 
criticisms as to this expense should not be made against the clock, 
when it is only one of many others of the same kind and the world 
is not materially interested as to a single clock. If I am not mis- 
taken, the avowed purjx)se of the Franklin Institute is to promote 
the sciences and the arts. If that be the case, so small a matter as 
the method of a city government in caring for a clock should not 
enter in the determination of whether an advancement has been 
made in the way of furnishing timepieces, especially when, as ad- 
mitted in your report and from which I shall quote later to prove 
it, no other kuoioi timepiece ivould Jiave perfonned the service. 

10. "The anchor lever pin in the master clock has jumped 
out of the crutch in the counterbalance lever on the pendulum 
upon several occasions, l)Ut that may be easily remedied through 
the method employed, that of placing a clip spring upon the lever 
to keq^ the pin in place, which is bad and liable to subject the 
escape wheel or pallets to injury." 

Now. gentlemen, here is a case where the horologist- in his 
province of criticism of a master clock is fully on his own ground 
and should be given full hearing. You must not forget that pre- 
viously in this report he has made the statement that the astronom- 
ical clock furnished was an admiral)le astronomical clock. He 
has given the name of the makers and there is no question about 
it. Previous to this, I have quoted from the report, showing that 
the clock is condemned because a diaphragm may give out, al- 
though I have shown that there is no necessity of the clock stop- 
ping because of this defect, since there is abundance of fore-warn- 
ing of the coming difficulty. After having s|X>ken in the highest 
terms of this astronomical clock, the statement is made that the 
lever pin has jumped out of the crutch in the counterbalance lever 
upon the pendulum upon several occasions. Now, when this lever 
jumped out, the tower clock stopped and the stoppage was just 
as apparent and just as effectual as though it had been a dia- 
phragm which stopped it. You must justly only conclude, there- 
fore, that mechanism commended by horologists and made ac- 
cording to the liighest principles of the science of horology, and 
with the best of workmanshij) may have a defect, and that this 
defect is just as serious as though, instead of being only in me- 
chanism made in Germanv, was a defect in something made by 



18 

one of your fellow citizens. In fact, the jumping out of this pin 
of the astronomical clock has occasioned more stoppages than any- 
thing else. Therefore, you must deduct from your total criticism 
of this clock as a method diflfering from weight clocks, all errors 
7v}iicJi are liable to zceight clocks and even the best of them. 
The method of remedying this liability of the pin to jump from its 
crutch may not he the best, but I wish to state that one of the 
best firms in Philadelphia tried to remedy this difficulty in some 
other way without avail. The fact that it has now run nearly two 
years without any difficulty, goes far to show that the criticism of 
the method of remedying the difficulty in the horological part of 
the clock was hardly correct. 

II. "The clock shows ingenious contrivances and clever ar- 
rangements, but does not fulfill its object, namely, to furnish ac- 
curate time uninterruptedly." 

This short paragraph of twenty words effectually, according 
to the preliminary report, condemns the clock, and it is all con- 
demned in the last word — "uninterruptedly.'' Will the Committee 
or any one of the Committee show a single case where any clock 
or any watch or any chronometer in the world up to the present 
time has ever shown time correctly and uninterruptedly for four- 
years? If anyone can show me such a clock, watch or chrono- 
meter and prove the fact. I will give a very handsome reward. In 
fact, the proposition is so sweeping as to be absurd. There is no 
such thing as an accurate clock, and everyljody knows it. A clock 
may have a uniform rate either of increase or decrease, but no 
clock in the world is accurate and keeps exact time and there is 
no clock in the world but requires to be set to accurate time, 
when its error is more than a certain amount. The great clock in 
London, which you mention in your report, is corrected when its- 
error is two seconds, and so is the same method provided for and 
used witli the astronomical clock in the Philadelphia City Hall. If 
the dials- on the outside do not correspond to the astronomical 
clock, that is not my fault. There is an inside indicating dial for 
every one of the outside dials, so thoroughly self-contained with 
the outside hands, that it is absolutely impossible for the time to- 
be shown differently inside the tower than outside. That the 
four dials should differ is a matter for which there is not the 



1'^ 

slightest excuse, barniig accidents to indivichial dials. I do not 
think that any one of your Committee would take the position 
that the hands of a tower clock are the c.vacf indexes of time. 
The point of the minute hand on these dials is one foot from the 
dials. The space between the minute marks on the dial is also 
one foot. Should the astronomical clock be absolutely correct 
and should the hands of the tower clcKk be set in a corresponding 
position, and should a man with a watch, also set to exact time, 
stand upon the ground, as far from the base of the tower as the 
tower is high, at fifteen minutes before the hour, he would find 
that the tower clock was one minute too fast, according to his 
watdi, because the point of the hand would be projected on the 
dial one foot above its diametric ix>sition. Should he now wait 
one-half hour, standing in the same place, he would find that the 
tower clock was apparentl}' one minute too slow, according to 
his watch, because when it in reality stood at fifteen minutes past 
the hour, it would appear to be fourteen minutes past the- hour. 
Would you consider this man reasonable, if he said that the Phila- 
delphia City Hall clock was incorrect 1)ecause it appeared to vary 
two minutes in half an hour, and that he knew it ])ecause he stood 
rii^iht there and watched it? We certainly do not expect such 
things from a sub-committee which is appointed especially to judge 
of this clock, and this Committee knows that there is no time when 
the tower clock dial shows the time to the observer upon the 
ground with any degree of what is called accuracy, excepting the 
time when the minute hand is either at 12 or at 6 and the observer 
stands in a line of vision which passes from the point of the hand 
through the center of the clock and his eye. or at such other time 
as his position will allow the same visual relations. This being 
the case, a criticism as to the accuracy of the time as shown by 
the hands becomes certainly very unjust, because it is not in keep- 
ing with the facts as to tower clocks. Granting that this clock has 
the proper care, and which care maybe ver}^ small, whereby the dial 
mechanism corresponds to the master clock, the whole criticism 
of accuracy must be a criticism of the accuracy of the astronom- 
ical clock. The sub-committee, therefore, must abide by its own 
statements, that the master clock is a fine piece of ivorkmanship, 
and I have alreadv stated that I will guarantee it to work more 



20 

accuratcl\' than any other astronomical clock in the world, for the 
very reason that it is provided with a mechanism whereby the 
temperature is kept constantly within i°, a condition that no other 
astronomical clock in the world has ever had the advantage of.. 
This, however, lias not seemed to impress your sub-committee and 
has l^cen passed with the slight degree of commendation, which 
has been given certain other parts of the clock and which cannot 
overcome such a statement as is made in the above paragraph of 
twenty words. In the first paragraph of the report, a statement 
is made as follows : 

12. "The Chairman of the sub-committee has observed the 
action of the dials from the street ; from the fact that they some- 
times move in minute distances, instead of lialf minute, he judges 
that they were then being operated by hand." 

Xow, I do not see as much can be said as to this. The re- 
port has already given the exact description of how these hands 
are operated. It states that they move at half minute intervals. 
It states that during such movements, they could not be moved 
beyond the point required, neither could they fall back. It states 
that there are dogs or pawls wliicli lock them at every half minute, 
which is true. Now, if the statements are true, how could they 
move in minute distances in place of half minute distances? It 
is possible that if in case the dial had been stopped and it was be- 
ing moved up to correct time, that it would move rapidly, but it 
could not move in minute distances. If the Chairman of the sub- 
committee observed this from the street, is it scientific to infer 
that it was being moved l^y hand ? Would not the proper way be, 
since there is an elevator to the time room, tO' have taken this 
elevator and have found out the facts ? Should m\' reputation be 
destroyed on an inference? The Chairman supposed from the 
swaying of the hand that there was something wrong with the 
adjustment of the dial mechanism. Has any one of your sub- 
committee, who is a mechanical engineer, investigated the me- 
chanism of these dials? Have I been asked for blueprints show- 
ing the construction ? No ; but if such mechanical engineer would 
investigate, he would see that the dial mechanism is the most per- 
fect possible to be made, and that the swaving of the hands, etc., 



SI 

is only to l)e determined by the mechanical enj^ineers of your sub- 
committee and certainly not by horoloc^ists. 
Further on you sav : 

13. "The time for comparison was "taken from timepieces 
whose rate is compared daily with the Washington signal- al- 
though the clock room is equipped with such a sounder, there is 
no one to take the signal and the rate of the master clock is not 
known. ' 

This paragraph is in connection with the statement that the 
clock is incorrect. Now, if there is provided a relay in the clock 
room, by which the correct time from Washington may be found 
every day. am I to blame if it is not found? Am I responsible 
for and nuist my reputation be ruined, not by mechanism which I 
have pro<luced. but by the negligence of others over wlu)m 1 have 
no control ? The statement is made that the rate of the master 
clock is not known. Another part of the rei>ort quotes from a 
letter from an unknown person in Canada, who leams from an- 
other iXTson unknown to you that the rate of the clock in Toronto 
is from eight to ten seconds per month. Yet the statement is 
made that the rate of the master clock in Philadelphia is not 
knoi^'u. when it was entirely within the province and certainly 
within possibility and even duty of this Committee to find the 
rating of the clock themselves, as the clock is only on the seventh 
fioor of the tower, easily accessible, and the sub-committee has 
had the privilege of visiting it any day and at all times desired. 
The statement is made, and this statement must be given just as 
much weight as the statement of an unknown individual in 
Canada, that this astronomical clock ran five months with a total 
error of tivcnty-one seconds. 1 wish to remark at this point that 
the astronomical clock of the City Hall tower of Philadelphia has 
never had any expert attentiou since first adjusted by me. You 
must admit that there is a loug way between a knowledge wliich 
properly regulates and rates an astronomical clock and the degree 
of expertness which is required to simply see that the mechanism 
of a tower clock, which is a mechanical aflfair of large moment, 
is running, and I suggest that your Committee, in order to aid the 
City of Philadelphia and to aid justice to the makers of the clock, 
request that some one of the Committee or some competent per- 



22 

son l)e given charge of the regulation, the rating, and the general 
care of this astronomical clock. I ani quite sure that people 
equally competent in their own line as to manufacture and care of 
mechanism will do the rest. 

The absolute failure of this clock, as viewed by your Com- 
mittee and through the publications which have reached the world, 
is again fully reiterated by the following paragraph : 

14. "The clock fails in its most necessary function, that of 
showing accurate time to the public at all times, some of the causes 
being inherent in the system." 

This is more strong, if possi])le. than the previous quotation, 
because it is not allowed that it is possible to make the clock good ; 
in other words, the word inherent is used. Should I not have 
been called upon as to the question of whether the defects or so- 
called defects were possible of remedy? If it is admitted that as 
an engineering problem, it is a success, should not my opinion as 
to what is inherent or not inherent have some weight, before my 
work is condemned absolutely ? Now again the report says : 

15. "The recording has not l)een positive and unfailing in 
its action, being far below the standard set by other well known 
clocks." 

Heretofore the sub-committee has discussed the clock within 
itself. It now begins to discuss it relatively, and certainly that is 
a proper way to. judge of whether a thing is a1)solutely bad and 
absolutely a failure, as is stated in the report, but by taking the 
paragraphs above stated, this comparison would l)e unnecessary, 
since the report states that it must "uninterniptedly" and ''un- 
failingly" record correct time, and there is, therefore, no room 
for comparison, unless it be that other clocks may have failures. 
If this clock must be absolutely perfect to be a success, there is 
no use in comparing its deficiencies with others. Nevertheless, 
the alcove paragraph obliges me to take this matter up. I have 
said heretofore, as a fact well known to scientists, that data must 
never be used unless its truth is undeniable. In using data in the 
report to prove that my clock is bad. as compared with others, 
assertions are made without anything to show their correctness. 
No documentary evidence whatever is given, excepting one letter. 
When I had the pleasure of meeting your sul>committee and re- 
marks were made as to certain statements in your report, the 
Cliairman said that they were simply statements, but if they were 
simply statements and not intended to indicate that as compared 



28 

with other clocks, mine was l>acl. ichy were they made at all? If 
statements are made which are unverified but which are intended 
to give weight, why should not all of the statements which could 
have been obtained have been used, instead of one or two, which 
show that other clocks are more reliable than mine. In conjunc- 
tion with these statements of the perfections of other clocks, posi- 
tive statements are made as to the failures of my clock. Data 
has 1)een obtained, as stated in the reix>rt. as to the stoppages of 
my clock, but no data has been prcKluced to show the stoppages of 
the Westminster clock or the Toronto clock, which are mentioned 
in the rq3ort for the purpose of showing that the JV est minster 
eloek and the Toronto clock are more reliable than the Philadel- 
phia clock. While, as I state, it is not scientific to make unverified 
statements for the puqwse of drawing scientific conclusions, and 
much less is it justifiable, when reputations are at stake, yet from 
the very fact that such statements have been used for the purpose 
of comparison with my clock to indicate its lack of reliability. I 
have the equal right to bring forward statements which show that 
you have been lead into an error and have not taken into con- 
sideration both the pro's and con's. Not only this. I will go fur- 
ther, and while I record them here as mere statements, set ofif 
against mere statements. I can prove that each statement I make 
is absolutely correct. 

1 6. "The great Westminster clock which has set a standard 
both for accuracy and reliability unexcelled by any other tower 
clock in the world, has a weight-driven, gravity escapement, 
primary movement wound once a week in the going part, the oc- 
cupation requiring about twenty minutes. 

^t -^ -Jf. ^ ;;< H: :;< >!= =!- -i^ ^i? =!= =i: 

A thorough description of this clock will be found in a work 
•on Clocks. Watches and Bells, by Sir Edmund Beckett. In i860 
it was set going and with the exception of a few stoppages in its 
very early history, and once in a very severe storm, when the 
hands were loaded with snow, which froze after a thaw, has been 
constant in its operation, unless ivhen being cleaned." (The un- 
derscoring of the last four words of this paragraph are mine and 
is done advisedly, as you will see later on.) 

In a previous paragraph quoted from the report, the standard 
is set that a clock must keep time "uninterruptedly," and I would 
like to ask the Committee if the Westminster clock keeps time 
uninterruptedly when it is being cleaned. The question now 
arises, is it cleaned at least once in four years? I could not make 
a statement as to the time required to properly clean a tower clock 
of that magnitude, but I do not think the Committee would place 



24 

the time at less than three days. However, that is a matter of 
conjecture. The statement is made in the above paragraph that 
this clock has run uninterruptedly, excepting- for a few stoppages 
in its very early history. You have taken note of all stoppages 
with my clock, early history and all : consequently, you cannot 
eliminate stoppages of the Westminster clock, because thev were 
early in its history. Quoting from the very same work on that 
clock from which your re]X)rt quotes: In 1881 its error was under 
two seconds on 84 per cent, of the days of observation, between 
two and three seconds on fourteen per cent, and between three 
and four seconds on 2 per cent. Now, 2 per cent, of the days of 
a year is y.T^ days per year and in four years twenty-nine days. 
Practically in the same length of time that the Philadelphia clock 
has run. the Westminster clock would have been more than two 
seconds wrong, practically a whole month, (putting the days to- 
gether), and yet a still greater accuracy is expected of the Phila- 
delphia clock. Tt is also stated in this same work from which 
you quote, that in a week of thunder storms, the Westminster 
clock varied eight seconds, which would be more than one-half 
minute per month, and that there were two cases where the clock 
varied five seconds supposedly in a single day. The writer would 
infer that usually it did not vary more than two seconds. The 
writer states that these times when it varied five seconds in a 
day, it "was evidently from something done in the clock room." 
Now, I wish to state what is known, or should have been known 
to the sub-committee, that practically during the four whole years 
in which the Philadelphia clock has been running, an elevator has- 
been built in the tower, starting in the very clock room where the 
fine astronomical clock is placed and reaching to the top of the 
tower; that in building this elevator, floors have been destroyed, 
the clock room has been filled with dust, the elevator frame work 
has been riveted together, beams have been cut, etc. No mention 
of this has been made in the report and no allowance given what- 
ever for errors in the astronomical clock on that account. Again, 
how is this clock in Westminster kept within two seconds? 
Simply by being connected every day with the Obsen^atory 
at Greenwich and the men who have charge of the clock regulate 
it by stopping or accelerating the pendulum to keep it within a 
limit of two seconds and this is exactly what is done or may be 
done with the astronomical clock in Philadelphia, but which, if it 
were cared for by an expert, as I have above suggested, would 
seldom need doing. 



25 

x-j. "In tiic early part of 1901 a tower clock was installed in 
the City lUiildings of Toronto, Canada. The clock is located 280 
feet ahove the level of the street and the dials are 20 feet i inch in 
diameter. 

The movement is a large primary one, placed in the dial room, 
driven by an 800 lb. weight, with doiible three-legged gravity 
escapement, jeweled pallets, Gillett & Johnson's half minute 
remontoir and equipped with a striking mechanism. 

In the reply of Mr. H. R. I'laytner, of the Canadian Horo- 
logical Institute, to an inquiry from this Institute (see appendix), 
he states, that at the time of writing (March 24, 1902), the clock 
had not been accepted by the city, but that the time-keeping was 
good, only a variation of from 8 to 10 seconds per month, accord- 
ing to the assertion of the clock maker having charge of it at first." 
( The underscoring is mine. ) 

As stated before, the only object of referring to other clocks 
in the report is to make comparisons as to whether the Philadel- 
phia City Hall clock is as good as others or not, and the above 
quotation from your report as to the Toronto clock is one of those 
which you refer to. I note that nothing whatever is stated as to 
any irregularities, inaccuracies or defects in the Toronto clock. 
You quote from a letter from the Canadian Horological Institute. 
The President of that scientific body gets his information from a 
clock maker not named, who asserted that it ran with an error 
of not more than ten seconds per month. Now. where are the 
cons with reference to this clock? Xot having been furnished by 
your report, I shall proceed to furnish them, and can, if necessary, 
give exact data, but it is not my purpose to speak slightingly of 
other people's work, and I should not do so now. only 1 am com- 
pelled to do so in self-defense. This Toronto clock was started 
going in May, 1901. and when the I'resident of the Horological 
Institute of Canada wrote his letter to you, had not been in opera- 
tion a year, practically only one-fifth of the time that the Philadel- 
phia clock has been in operation, and was put in charge of a man 
by the name of Ashall, who had charge of many other clocks in 
Toronto and who ougJit to have been an expert on that account, 
and probably was, and he had charge of the clock until January, 
1902. The clock stopped a great many times up to that time (two- 
thirds of a year), as many as twelve times, I am well informed, 
while the total charge against the Philadelphia clock in four years 
is ten times. There was such dissatisfaction with the clock dur- 
ing the early part of the present year that the contractor was sent 
for and came all the way from IJirmingham in England, and he 
found fault with some changes which had been made in the clock 
to make it run. In the report, in criticizing the Philadelphia City 



26 

Hall clock, it is stated that it should run with no more expert 
services than can he furnished hy a jeweler, and yet the Toronto 
clock within eig-ht months after its installation required not only 
an expert, but tJic maker to come across the sea to get it in order. 
No one has ever come to Philadelphia to get the Philadelphia City 
Hall clock in order. Which, therefore, requires the most expert 
services? The manufacturer having gotten the Toronto clock to 
satisfy himself, so far as he could, returned to England, and while 
it has run better since, yet at present it still needs some alterations 
to make it wdiat it should be, as I am toJd. Finally I wish to state 
that the City of Toronto owes the contractor $1,500, not yet paid 
upon the clock, because it has not been accepted. Therefore, does 
your reference to the City Hall clock in Toronto, when both sides 
of the case are produced, show the Philadelphia clock in a liad 
light or in a comparatively good light? 

The report refers to the Westminster clock and Toronto clock 
to show how much better they are than mine. In the report the 
sub-committee now refers tO' one of my own clocks to show its 
defects. In the Westminster and Toronto clocks, the report 
speaks of their excellencies, — of the Alilwaukee clock, it only 
speaks of its defects. I, therefore, take the liberty of referring to its 
excellencies. 

18. "The Jkwklkr.s' Cikcl'l.vr W'kkklv of ^larch 5, page 
14, states that on FelDruary 21, 1902, the Milwaukee City Hall 
clock system, striking mechanism and all was stopped, owing to 
the clogging of one valve ank;l a defect in another, rendering the 
compressed air inoperative." 

With reference to this, 1 wish first to call your attention to 
the fact that you are quoting from the very same journal that has 
published the garbled quotations from the preliminary report, and 
so garbled as to put the worst construction on the report. ( I quote 
in full such garbled quotations in the early pages of this paper.) 
Will you kindly, therefore, so far as this criticism of the Milwau- 
kee clock is concerned, judge it partially by the source from which 
you receive it? As to- whether the statement as to the Milwaukee 
clock was correct at that time, I need not discuss, but for the sake 
of argument, w-ill allow the statement to go unchallenged, but 
the sub-committee forgot to introduce in the report quotations 
from another journal of a year previous, — the only difference be- 
ing that the one quoted throws doubt on the value of the ^lilwau- 



27 



kce pneumatic clock and consequently, by inference, on the Phila- 
delphia City Hall clock, while the other quotation which was not 
used has exactly the contrary effect. The quotation is as follows: 



alar 

vere 

ided 

1 the 

n the 

that 

louble 

were 

•p" or 

A-ed to 

oming 

great 

ico on 

ils. It 

ahead 

up for 

e sent 



•need 
di- 

>Vis- 

tied 

.early 

round 

into 

. the 

'I in 

ines 

ity. 

' er, 

>r- 

•e, 

es, 

nd 

ar- 

of 
to 
3le- 
the 
kee 
last 
ves- 



cu in pc 
uiL . -lOrc, ot on account of th 

cor these steamers do not as a rule rt 
Sunday nights. 



CLOCKS GOON A STRIKE. 

Sleet Blocks the Mauds nntl Severn! 

Cease Operations Early in 

tlie Day. 

The Sunday storm, which played havoc 
with the various tower clocks in the city, 
v/as unable to stop the Seidel street clock, 
corner of Grand avenue and Second street, 
and succeeded in stopping only one of the 
faces on the City hall clock. The conjec- 
tures as to what enabled these two clocks 
to defy the elements is explained in the 
fact that they are not run by a regular 
clock mechanism. The hands on the dial 
are moved by the Johnson system of 
pneumatic air tubes, which are not affected 
by frost or moisture 

The driving sleet was the cause of the 
unusual disturbance among the town 
clocks; for the fine, wet snow soon found 
a lodgement beneath and behind the 
hands until those important adjuncts were 
unable to budge another inch. From all 
appearances the small Pruesser clock at 
Mason and Bast Water streets set the bad 
example, for at 6:50 a. m., the hands 
stopped moving and remained in a station- 
ary and prevaricating position all day. At 
8:50 the reliable and ordinarily conscienti- 
ous clock at the Northwestern depot re- 
tired from active business, much to the 
discomfiture of not a few persons who 
relied upon it to catch the 9 o'clock train; 
and probably to the intense glee of the 
Union depot time-piece which plodded 
along without a break during the day. 
But soon after the clock on the Pabst 
building, the Bloedel clock on Grand 
avenue, and clocks on churches on the 
south and west sides joined in the gen- 
eral movement to "quit." There will be 
plenty of work for the watch mender to- 
day. 



l.»o c. 

that f( 
The tn 
terday 
and sli 
of the 
go 
goi' 



p. 

Wi. 

wa 
trai 
pas! 
Chi< 
per 
was 
ing 
T 
tel 
un 
on 
tl 
ce 
cl 

Nc 
difi 
ern 
pan 
On it 
east : 
Nortl 
strik 
wer' 
lute 
bei- 
O 
po' 
al- 
TL 



DELAYS EARLY DELIVER''"' 

(Clipped from the Milwaukee Sentinel, March ii, 1901.) 



References to the effect of sleet and snow on both the Phila- 
delphia and the Milwaukee clocks (besides many others of my 



28 

clocks which I niio-ln refer to) show l)eyond all (luestion that as 
regards power, the pendulum clocks are far inferior to my clocks. 
Especially is this a great, in fact a sine que n-on requisite with the 
Philadelphia clock. Xo other clock ever made has the power to 
overcome the winds, snows and sleets of that altitude and that 
latitude. Philadeljjhia being within the belt of slushy snows. 

I think it unnecessary to quote from some other portions of 
the report which refer to objections to the clock, (such as the fact 
that no blueprints are furnished the City of Philadelphia). Most 
of these are of such a nature as not to warrant a lengthening of 
my objections to the report. In not furnishing blueprints of the 
clock to the city. I followed the same rules which are followed by 
makers of machinery in general, and 1 can only refer vou to the 
mechanical members of your Committee for a verification of mv 
statement. It is not customary for makers to furnish detailed 
drawings of their mechanism to everybody wdio buys a set of the 
mechanism. I would say, how^ever, that I will gladly furnish the 
city with a copy of such blueprints ou request. 

Having discussed brieliy the objections and condemnations 
of the City Hall clock and having taken up briefly also the clocks 
which have been mentioned for the purpose of showing that the 
City Hall clock in Philadelphia is not up to the standard. I must 
now refer to such part of the report as discusses the position of 
the clock and the requirements. Statements are made as to the 
distance from the ground to the dials, the diumal and other dis- 
turbances of the tower, all of wdiich are true. After discussing 
the question of primary pendulum clocks, the report says : 

18. "THESE CONDrriONS PRODUCE A SITUA- 
TION DIFFICULT TO BE OVERCOME SATIS- 
FACTORILY BY THE ORDINARY METHOD OF USING 
A LARGE PRIMARY CLOCK, PLACED IN THE DIAL 
ROOM. AS THE ACCURACY OF THE PENDULUM 
WOULD BE DESTROYED." 

The above quotation is written in capitals in this protest, ]>e- 
cause its relative importance to other parts of the report is so 
g^reat that it eannot l)e too highly uiagiiified. If the clock which 
I have placed in the City Hall in Philadelphia is to l^e judged by 
other clocks which have been made, and in comparison with the 
best which have been made, as the sub-conmiittee has done, the 



29 

compariscn must be full and aimplcte. and in order to l)c con- 
sidered a failure, it nuist he shown lliat the other clocks which 
are commended so highly would do better under the same eou- 
(I if ions: that is. height of the tower, disturbances by wind and 
earthquake movement. That pendulum and weight clocks may 
work even better than this clock somewhere else HAS XOTH- 
IXG TO DO WITH THE CASE. They must work better in 
the same position ; but in the above quoted paragraph it is ad- 
mitted that a pendulum placed in this position would not li'ork 
at all. Its accuracy would be destroyed, h^irther on the report 
considers the location of the pendulum and movement at some 
point below, where it is stated it would not be feasible on account 
of the length and weight of a vertical shaft ; consequently, so far 
as the Philadelphia City Hall tower is concerned, the most ex- 
cellent clocks which are cited for the purpose of making com- 
parisons, eoiilii not l^e used, and I wish to state right here that 
the statement which you make embodies the very conclusions that ' 
Mr. John S. Stevens came to, when he was investigating the sub- 
ject of purchasing a clock for the City Hall, and that you have 
arrived at conclusions which had [^rez'iously been diseussed. Eor 
years the dial openings in the City Hall tower were boarded up 
and the matter was made one of jest by the numerous reporters 
of your city papers. The boarding up of these dials became a 
matter of general c(,mment and I suppose that those in charge felt 
themselves in duty hound to supply a clock where dial openings 
had been made for a clock. I have quoted from the report show- 
ing that no weight winding, pendulum-going clock would work in 
that tower. The report does not produce the slightest evidence 
that any other kind of clock in the world would operate there. It 
speaks of Hipp's clock, which consists of a method of releasing 
the weight mechanism l)y electricity once a minute, InU there is 
not the slightest evidence that any clock of any magnitude "d'as 
ever operated in this manner. Certainly such a thing would not 
be considered in a work of such magnitude as is required for the 
Citv Hall tower clock in Philadelphia. The Commission did not 
purchase this clock on theory, but saw other clocks made by me 
and which had been running for years. The only conclusion that 
can be drawn, if full weigln is ^^iven to the objections to my clock. 



30 

taking into consideration the above capitalized quotation which 
states that a pen<hilum clock would not work, is that no clock 
should have been installed at all and that the City of Philadelphia 
should have left the dial openings lx)arded up, awaiting some 
time in the dim, distant future, when there should arrive a con- 
structor who would meet the conditious which are named — that 
a clock must be absolutely accurate and must work "uninter- 
ruptedly," or in other words, must uerer stop. I cannot believe 
that your Committee, as a whole or any meml>er of it, desires to 
take such a position. That being the case, let me now consider the 
question of whether my clock has been more inaccurate than other 
tower clocks and has worked less "uninterruptedly." Granting as 
above, that no other clock works absolutely correct, nor any 
clock works uninterruptedly, since the weight clocks which the 
report says are better, but which it also says could not be used at 
all, it follows that it is not encumbent upon me to show a very 
good clock if we should come down to a matter of pure reason 
and logic, l)ut I think I can do a good deal better than that and 
show that my clock is better in any position. 

During the four years in which the City Hall clock in Phila- 
delphia has been running, it has remained idle, considering it as 
a whole (that is, a clock of four dials), one day, two hours and 
fifteen minutes, and these stoppages include not only the stop- 
pages which have been occasioned by the decryed pneumatic 
methods, but the faults of the astronomical clock ivhich the report 
coniineiids, the settling of iron work connected with the dial and 
the extraordinary sleet storms which have assailed it. Speaking 
of the sleet storms. I wish to call to your mind that during a Sun- 
da}- of December last, a severe sleet storm visited Philadelphia, 
which, as I learned, stopped every tower clock in the city with the 
exception of the Philadelphia City Hall clock and the Independ- 
ence Hall clock. This goes to show that notwithstanding it is in 
a position where a pendulum clock would not work, it has been 
found to withstand storms which they will not even survive in 
their lowly positions. 

In the four years in which my clock has now run, there have 
been 1.483 days. Dividing 26.25 hours (the total length of stop- 
pages) l)y this and we have a decimal of .00073. o^" ^'^ other words. 



31 



that a clock has run (hirino- four years more than .999 of the time. 
and remember this inchules (/// stoppages which would not have 
been necessary, if an expert observance had always been made of 
such parts, including the astronomical clock, as might indicate a 
possible stoppage which could have been prevented. I have pre- 
viously referred yoii to P.eckett's lx3ok, where he speaks of the 
Westminster clock being stopped for the purpose o^f cleaning. 
Supposing that the Westminster clock had not stopped for any 
other reason, such as thunder storms, sleet storms, etc.. would it 
not have been stopped at least seventy-three one-hundred-thou- 
sandths of the time for the purpose of cleaning it in a period of 
four years? In criticizing the Philadelphia clock, do not forget 
that this is the first four years of its service, when there may be 
defects which, though r.ot inherent, may crop out and which have 
been remedied without sending to England for an expert ; in other 
words, the same early defects which the rq)ort excuses in other 
clocks than mine. Please, gentlemen, in criticizing the City Hall 
clock, bear in mind that the report does not mention, as a work 
which compares favorably with mine, or gives as a standard for 
good work. (/ single Aiiicvicati clock. It has been the pride of our 
country that we have encouraged inventions and progress and 
through inventions and progress our country has taken its place 
among other nations of the world. Are we still so far behind in 
clocks ? 

Briefly considering what the report has to say and what I 
have said in reply, taking into consideration the fact that quota- 
tions from the report detrimental to nn- reputation and the busi- 
ness interests of the manufacturers of the Philadelphia clock have 
gone abroad throughout the land and have already begun to injure 
ni}- reputation and business. — it seems to me that your Com- 
mittee should weigh very carefully a report on the Philadelphia 
City Hall clock. 1 am quite sure that my clock will compare 
favorably with any other clock and is tlie only clock that would 
run in that tower. 

In the beginning of this ]:)rotest I quoted from a letter written 
by the Howard Clock Company to prospective customers. There 
is not the least doubt that they will use large numbers of the 
Jkwelkks' \\'kkklv to further their interests at the expense of 




32 

014 758 203 1 ^ 

my reputation. I. therefore. l)espcak .iv^i.. ,^.w .. .. .^... " 

of the report, which shall i^iit me in the proper lig^ht hefore the 
public, and which will counteract in a measure the misrepresenta- 
tions which I have quoted in the early part of this protest. If, in 
vour mind, vou do not think my work, after further consideration, 
and after the full evidence which I have .c^iven. as worthy a medal, 
I shall rest content with exoneration. 
Most respectfully sul^nitted, 

Warrkx S. John SOX. 

Mem. Am. Soc. Mech. Eng. 
^^em. Am. Inst. Klec. Kng. 
New York, January i, 1903. 



,^.^ 



., v-:)>i,-^ 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

■Hjl 

■ 014 758 203 1 ^ 



